Die Hard 5

Off Topic
1

I didn’t see a thread so I figured I’d start one.

Let me list some of my favorite action movies to give you an idea what I like:
Die Hard, Predator, The Rundown, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Terminator 2, True Lies, The Mummy, The Avengers, …well, lots more slip my mind but I’d have to say I like substance over style. If a movie has too many edits and cuts and shaky cam I get pissed off. I really really hated the Pierce Brosnan 007 movies…I like Daniel Craig’s ones. I abhor movies with chicks in leather firing two guns at zombies and all that shit.

There will be SPOILERS so please be careful!

First, I hated the damn thing. It was very stupid and actually boring even those a lot of stupid things blew up. I’d rate it 5/10.

I should say I saw the first one when I was in junior high dickhead (That’s a reference to a line from the first film) and of course think that was the best one, the second was OK, the third was a return to greatness and the 4th I thought was the worst till this new one came out.

Bruce did a great job looking a little scared and nervous and exasperated in the first three but it was in the 4th movie that they had him acting like he was bored or aloof or something. He really doesn’t even act like the same character.

I mean remember in the first movie he needs to tie a fire hose around his waist before he jumps off the roof to get away from the bomb and helicopter? He was talking to himself saying he’d never go up in a tall building and that he was so scared and so forth…now? Pffft! He runs and jumps out of a window and is at least 20 floors up with only scaffolding out there.

Bruce’s face never even really changes the whole time in this movie no matter what happens. Maybe it’s a sign of the times because we have those movies with chicks in leather firing two guns as they jump from a helicopter onto a moving truck or some shit…y’know the kind of stuff even Indiana Jones wouldn’t do without making a “Holy shit!” sort of face. I guess I show my age but because of CG they now they can show anything so now you have helicopters blowing up and sending their rotors crashing a tenth of an inch from the good guy’s head and so on.

Also, just in case someone comes along with the old “Dude, it’s an action movie! It’s supposed to be dumb with explosions!”…well we do need to be a little discerning, right? I mean you can’t just say with any action movie that someone thinks is bad in all ways (writing, dialog, acting, effects etc.) that it’s all OK because action movies are supposed to be big and dumb.

C’mon, it’s not like I’m sitting watching the thing with a monocle and a snifter of brandy and sitting in a leather armchair with my smoking jacket on saying “This latest Die Hard is much inferior to the works of Faulkner.”

2

Sounds like it’s not that much different to the new James Bonds, Mission Impossible’s, Jason Bourne etc.
I mean nowadays they are running through walls and jumping 20 floors to a moving truck on a daily basis.

3
4

I haven’t seen it. Some of the reviews I read had the same complaints you did - Bruce looking bored, weak story, etc.

5

Agree wholeheartedly with Nards. The 4th movie saw John McClane go from reluctant hero to John Matrix from Commando. There is never any sense of fear or hesitancy on his part at all; it’s like he knows that he’s going to kill everyone and save the day, so why worry? I’m not surprised that this is more of the same bullshit.

I won’t be seeing this or any future Die Hard movies, and I strongly encourage any fans of the franchise to do the same. The studio and Bruce Willis are just cashing checks at this point.

6

Please don’t watch this movie.

  1. There is no character development. You have no sympathy for any of the characters.

  2. The movie seems like one giant scene.

  3. John Maclean is indestructible.

  4. Bruce Willis isn’t even trying to show anything but boredom.

  5. I’m not even sure the female lead is the same actress from beginning to end. The one at the end is substantially uglier than the one at the beginning.

  6. Who is the bad guy?

  7. The plot line of “Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters” will seem like Inception compared to this movie.

  8. The movie’s pacing was way too fast for this type of movie, making it a solid 30 minutes shorter than a regular die hard movie.

  9. The back stories of each character are mentioned in passing, as if they don’t mean much. Very vital pieces of the plot-line are explained this way, which is very annoying.

  10. As an add on to 9, they sometimes explain events after they happened. Meaning, the entire time it happens you’re thinking “what’s going on?”

  11. Seriously, who is the bad guy?

7

I saw it, not impressed, not at all.

8

My girlfriend is demanding I take her to see this tomorrow.

Sounds like a 90 minute seeth-a-thon

9

I will never say anything bad about die hard ever! lalallalAL LAllalaa notttt listening, nope nope nope!!!

It ended with a rolling stones song…

And that cool helicopter scene where bruce was like hanging out of it in that vehicle or whatever and stuff.

And all the blowy uppy stuff

I WILL ALWAYS LOVE DIE HARD!!!

10

It’s probably terrible, like the last one.

11

[quote]IFlashBack wrote:
Please don’t watch this movie.

  1. There is no character development. You have no sympathy for any of the characters.

  2. The movie seems like one giant scene.

  3. John Maclean is indestructible.

  4. Bruce Willis isn’t even trying to show anything but boredom.

  5. I’m not even sure the female lead is the same actress from beginning to end. The one at the end is substantially uglier than the one at the beginning.

  6. Who is the bad guy?

  7. The plot line of “Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters” will seem like Inception compared to this movie.

  8. The movie’s pacing was way too fast for this type of movie, making it a solid 30 minutes shorter than a regular die hard movie.

  9. The back stories of each character are mentioned in passing, as if they don’t mean much. Very vital pieces of the plot-line are explained this way, which is very annoying.

  10. As an add on to 9, they sometimes explain events after they happened. Meaning, the entire time it happens you’re thinking “what’s going on?”

  11. Seriously, who is the bad guy?

[/quote]

Driving from Moscow to chernobyl… eveyone is wearing radiation suits except the Mclanes…

12

The best thing about Die Hard was always John McClane doing something ridiculously stupid and risky and it miraculously working out for him, making him an accidental badass. (And posh, cunning, intensely complex Austrian arseholes trying to blow up the world with a ridiculous amount of hidden explosives).

Ever since production teams lost sight of that and focused on just compounding the action regardless of cost to the storyline, John McSupercop has laid waste to almost everything glorious (explosions are still cool) about the original, and almost as good but with less flair, Die Hard 3.

The changing locations piss me off too, I always liked Die Hard for it’s mexican stand off approach of keeping McClane, the villain, and all the innocent hostages together in one location with no conceivable escape plan, forcing John to take action and improvise in order to save everyone and kill the shit out of Alan Rickman.

And I miss the sassy hilarious African-American counterparts, Argyle, Samuel L. Jackson and Carl Winslow especially. It’s a bad omen not to let these characters have any considerable screen-time.

Apologies if I sound like a pretentious arsehole, I just get really passionate about films and i’ve watched Die Hard every Christmas since I was ten years old. (Obviously an authority).

13

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:
The best thing about Die Hard was always John McClane doing something ridiculously stupid and risky and it miraculously working out for him, making him an accidental badass. (And posh, cunning, intensely complex Austrian arseholes trying to blow up the world with a ridiculous amount of hidden explosives).

Ever since production teams lost sight of that and focused on just compounding the action regardless of cost to the storyline, John McSupercop has laid waste to almost everything glorious (explosions are still cool) about the original, and almost as good but with less flair, Die Hard 3.

The changing locations piss me off too, I always liked Die Hard for it’s mexican stand off approach of keeping McClane, the villain, and all the innocent hostages together in one location with no conceivable escape plan, forcing John to take action and improvise in order to save everyone and kill the shit out of Alan Rickman.

And I miss the sassy hilarious African-American counterparts, Argyle, Samuel L. Jackson and Carl Winslow especially. It’s a bad omen not to let these characters have any considerable screen-time.

Apologies if I sound like a pretentious arsehole, I just get really passionate about films and i’ve watched Die Hard every Christmas since I was ten years old. (Obviously an authority).

[/quote]
This guy knows his Die Hard.

Post more plz.

14

[quote]PB Andy wrote:

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:
The best thing about Die Hard was always John McClane doing something ridiculously stupid and risky and it miraculously working out for him, making him an accidental badass. (And posh, cunning, intensely complex Austrian arseholes trying to blow up the world with a ridiculous amount of hidden explosives).

Ever since production teams lost sight of that and focused on just compounding the action regardless of cost to the storyline, John McSupercop has laid waste to almost everything glorious (explosions are still cool) about the original, and almost as good but with less flair, Die Hard 3.

The changing locations piss me off too, I always liked Die Hard for it’s mexican stand off approach of keeping McClane, the villain, and all the innocent hostages together in one location with no conceivable escape plan, forcing John to take action and improvise in order to save everyone and kill the shit out of Alan Rickman.

And I miss the sassy hilarious African-American counterparts, Argyle, Samuel L. Jackson and Carl Winslow especially. It’s a bad omen not to let these characters have any considerable screen-time.

Apologies if I sound like a pretentious arsehole, I just get really passionate about films and i’ve watched Die Hard every Christmas since I was ten years old. (Obviously an authority).

[/quote]
This guy knows his Die Hard.

Post more plz.[/quote]

x2

15

[quote]Marzouk wrote:

[quote]PB Andy wrote:

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:
The best thing about Die Hard was always John McClane doing something ridiculously stupid and risky and it miraculously working out for him, making him an accidental badass. (And posh, cunning, intensely complex Austrian arseholes trying to blow up the world with a ridiculous amount of hidden explosives).

Ever since production teams lost sight of that and focused on just compounding the action regardless of cost to the storyline, John McSupercop has laid waste to almost everything glorious (explosions are still cool) about the original, and almost as good but with less flair, Die Hard 3.

The changing locations piss me off too, I always liked Die Hard for it’s mexican stand off approach of keeping McClane, the villain, and all the innocent hostages together in one location with no conceivable escape plan, forcing John to take action and improvise in order to save everyone and kill the shit out of Alan Rickman.

And I miss the sassy hilarious African-American counterparts, Argyle, Samuel L. Jackson and Carl Winslow especially. It’s a bad omen not to let these characters have any considerable screen-time.

Apologies if I sound like a pretentious arsehole, I just get really passionate about films and i’ve watched Die Hard every Christmas since I was ten years old. (Obviously an authority).

[/quote]
This guy knows his Die Hard.

Post more plz.[/quote]

x2[/quote]

Anywhere there is a film thread I will be waiting. Available by Carrier Pigeon or Bat symbol.

I am the critic T-Nation deserves.

16

[quote]Marzouk wrote:

[quote]PB Andy wrote:

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:
The best thing about Die Hard was always John McClane doing something ridiculously stupid and risky and it miraculously working out for him, making him an accidental badass. (And posh, cunning, intensely complex Austrian arseholes trying to blow up the world with a ridiculous amount of hidden explosives).

Ever since production teams lost sight of that and focused on just compounding the action regardless of cost to the storyline, John McSupercop has laid waste to almost everything glorious (explosions are still cool) about the original, and almost as good but with less flair, Die Hard 3.

The changing locations piss me off too, I always liked Die Hard for it’s mexican stand off approach of keeping McClane, the villain, and all the innocent hostages together in one location with no conceivable escape plan, forcing John to take action and improvise in order to save everyone and kill the shit out of Alan Rickman.

And I miss the sassy hilarious African-American counterparts, Argyle, Samuel L. Jackson and Carl Winslow especially. It’s a bad omen not to let these characters have any considerable screen-time.

Apologies if I sound like a pretentious arsehole, I just get really passionate about films and i’ve watched Die Hard every Christmas since I was ten years old. (Obviously an authority).

[/quote]
This guy knows his Die Hard.

Post more plz.[/quote]

x2[/quote]

x3 great post agree with all points

17

Ya know, I actually got bored of this. Thats a new one for me but I did like DH4.

The film was put together like some amateur film maker got ahold of a lot of money.

18

[quote]harrypotter wrote:
Ya know, I actually got bored of this. Thats a new one for me but I did like DH4.

The film was put together like some amateur film maker got ahold of a lot of money.[/quote]

Yeah, I wonder if this movie wasn’t just supposed to be a Bruce Willis movie then someone at the studio said “Hey, y’know we can call it a Die Hard movie if we like, we have the rights to the name.”

I think the Bruce Willis movie RED could have become a Die Hard movie with a few changes here and there…well maybe not as it goes over the top, but movies that do that need to have a scene early in the movie to indicate to the audience that this action movie is not really in the samw “world” we are in.
I mean Raiders of the Lost Ark has the scene in Peru at the beginning with booby traps and a giant ball rolling after him to let you know this movie will go a little too far. In The Rundown The Rock beats up most of a football team to let you know this movie will go beyond in some ways.

It may sound silly taken out of context but the Die Hard movies are supposed to be a little more grounded in reality.

19

[quote]PB Andy wrote:

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:
The best thing about Die Hard was always John McClane doing something ridiculously stupid and risky and it miraculously working out for him, making him an accidental badass. (And posh, cunning, intensely complex Austrian arseholes trying to blow up the world with a ridiculous amount of hidden explosives).

Ever since production teams lost sight of that and focused on just compounding the action regardless of cost to the storyline, John McSupercop has laid waste to almost everything glorious (explosions are still cool) about the original, and almost as good but with less flair, Die Hard 3.

The changing locations piss me off too, I always liked Die Hard for it’s mexican stand off approach of keeping McClane, the villain, and all the innocent hostages together in one location with no conceivable escape plan, forcing John to take action and improvise in order to save everyone and kill the shit out of Alan Rickman.

And I miss the sassy hilarious African-American counterparts, Argyle, Samuel L. Jackson and Carl Winslow especially. It’s a bad omen not to let these characters have any considerable screen-time.

Apologies if I sound like a pretentious arsehole, I just get really passionate about films and i’ve watched Die Hard every Christmas since I was ten years old. (Obviously an authority).

[/quote]
This guy knows his Die Hard.

Post more plz.[/quote]

This guy’s complaints sound eerily like the ones posited in this article on Cracked.com…

Either way, I liked, and agree for the most part, with his post

20

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]PB Andy wrote:

[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:
The best thing about Die Hard was always John McClane doing something ridiculously stupid and risky and it miraculously working out for him, making him an accidental badass. (And posh, cunning, intensely complex Austrian arseholes trying to blow up the world with a ridiculous amount of hidden explosives).

Ever since production teams lost sight of that and focused on just compounding the action regardless of cost to the storyline, John McSupercop has laid waste to almost everything glorious (explosions are still cool) about the original, and almost as good but with less flair, Die Hard 3.

The changing locations piss me off too, I always liked Die Hard for it’s mexican stand off approach of keeping McClane, the villain, and all the innocent hostages together in one location with no conceivable escape plan, forcing John to take action and improvise in order to save everyone and kill the shit out of Alan Rickman.

And I miss the sassy hilarious African-American counterparts, Argyle, Samuel L. Jackson and Carl Winslow especially. It’s a bad omen not to let these characters have any considerable screen-time.

Apologies if I sound like a pretentious arsehole, I just get really passionate about films and i’ve watched Die Hard every Christmas since I was ten years old. (Obviously an authority).

[/quote]
This guy knows his Die Hard.

Post more plz.[/quote]

This guy’s complaints sound eerily like the ones posited in this article on Cracked.com…

Either way, I liked, and agree for the most part, with his post[/quote]

I did read that article when it showed up around New Year, and some of my opinions about the film , even in my post, definitely draw on that without question. Sometimes it’s difficult to expand on a film’s premise and content without reiterating something thousands of more intelligent and sometimes more dedicated critics/fans have already interpreted in the past.
As much as I hate to feel like i’m not bringing anything new to the discussion, my points remain my own and will not likely fluctuate in any foreseeable future. Every time I watch a film I cherish closely, I try to see something new in it’s expression and debate upon whether other fans of the film feel the same way and why.

It seems if there’s more conversation on the film or franchise i’d be best served explaining my admiration for Die Hard and not so much my cynicisms.